Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 22, 2026
Closure of a Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO): An Intervention Sequence
Published on: December 23, 2022
[Periprocedural and late complications after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a single centre
Przemysław Węglarz1, Ewa Konarska Kuszewska, Katarzyna Spisak Borowska
11st Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland. pweglarz@gmail.com
Insights
Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a safe and effective method for preventing secondary strokes in young adults. This procedure successfully closed PFOs in over 90% of patients, with minimal complications.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Neurology
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is linked to ischemic stroke in young individuals.
- Percutaneous PFO closure is an interventional strategy for secondary stroke prevention.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous PFO closure.
- To assess the rate of residual shunt post-procedure in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events.
Main Methods:
- 149 patients underwent percutaneous PFO closure under local anesthesia.
- Procedures were guided by trans-esophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy.
- Follow-up included TTE at 1 month and TEE at 6 and 12 months.
Main Results:
- Effective PFO closure (no residual shunt) was achieved in 91.3% at 6 months and 95.3% at 12 months.
- Minor complications included transient atrial fibrillation (2 patients), puncture site hematoma (2 patients), and thrombophlebitis (1 patient).
- A small pericardial effusion in 1 patient resolved spontaneously.
Conclusions:
- Percutaneous PFO closure is a safe procedure when performed by experienced teams.
- The technique demonstrates high efficacy in achieving PFO closure and preventing residual shunts.
Background:
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a potential risk factor for ischaemic stroke in young individuals. An interventional method of secondary stroke prevention in PFO patients is its percutaneous closure.
Aim:
To assess safety and effectiveness (i.e. lack of residual shunt) of percutaneous PFO closure in patients with history of cryptogenic cerebrovascular event.
Methods:
149 patients (56 men/93 women), aged 39 ± 12 years, underwent percutaneous PFO closure. The implantation was performed under local anaesthesia, guided by trans-oesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy. Follow-up trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed at 1 month and follow-up TEE at 6-months. In cases of residual shunt, additional TEE was performed after ensuing 6 months.
Results:
Effective PFO closure (no residual shunt) was achieved in 91.3% patients at 6 months and 95.3% patients at 12 months. In 2 patients transient atrial fibrillation was observed during the procedure. In 2 patients, a puncture site haematoma developed and in 1 patient superficial thrombophlebitis was noted. In 1 patient a small pericardial effusion was observed, which resolved at day 3 post-procedurally, after administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Conclusions:
Percutaneous PFO closure seems to be a safe procedure when performed in a centre with adequate expertise with regard to these procedures.
